This is feedback on a Last Call Working Draft:
Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
W3C Working Draft 10 May 2011
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Schema-20110510/
Specifically on § 3.1. assertedBy Property:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Schema-20110510/#assertedBy
The domain of this property is earl:Assertion. Why is the domain not,
instead, the whole EARL report perhaps in class union with
earl:Assertion? Note that to be consistent with Bug 007 this would
have to be an OWL restriction or something of that kind rather than a
domain constraint.
Having the domain of earl:assertedBy be earl:Assertion, coupled with
the requirement on the cardinality of the property here:
4.1 Conforming EARL 1.0 Reports
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-EARL10-Guide-20110510/#EARL10Reports
Means that each earl:Assertion has to have an earl:assertedBy. Even if
it were optional, if the author wanted to associate a single Assertor
with each Assertion, they would have to do it with each individual
Assertion. This is more sensible for that case:
<> earl:assertedBy [ foaf:name "Bob B. Bobbington" ].
This would imply that for every instance, ?x, of Assertion within the document:
?x earl:assertedBy [ foaf:name "Bob B. Bobbington" ].
Compare also the log:semantics property in the SWAP tools.
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log (RDF)
Note that according to Bug 013, earl:assertedBy should be renamed to
earl:assertor.
--
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/